Who is John Galt?

[stlukesguild]

[cyberbob]

Denying the existence of something whilst there is no possibility of proving it sounds rather like dogmatic faith to me; that's why I'm agnostic.

With regard to Dawkins selfish gene theory, I would prefer to think along the lines of this article from Scientific American

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...man-behaviour/

My point was, and Dawkin's point is, that as a scientist you can never really prove the non-existence of anything.

We can't scientifically prove the non-existence of flying spaghetti monsters, teapots in space, invisible unicorns, Santa Claus, or any of the other tropes atheists use in their arguments.

Even evolution cannot technically be proven to be a scientific fact even though it is for all intents and purposes a fact.

And like Dawkins says, we are all atheists in some sense. We're all atheists toward Greek and Norse gods. I don't think being a Zeus agnostic would be a more intellectually respectable position to hold than being a Zeus atheist. Some of us just extend that toward the modern religions.

Anyway, this is not the religion section so that's the last I'll say of that.

[hellsapoppin]

Don't worry about it Subtle, the book is trash, one part boring polemics and one part trite bodice ripper.
Ayn Rand pops up on these "best of" lists because she has a devoted fanatical following driven by their sympathy for her politics.

Touché!

Ayn Rand called Jesus Christ the biggest fraud in history and said that the best thing about Christmas was its commercialization. She hated welfare but secretly took welfare under her married name in order to hide that fact. Her hypocrisy is to typical of delusionals who subscribe to those of that social bent.

[gurthbruins]

Ayn Rand is anti-altruistic in an age which has gone to the opposite extreme. Or pretends to have, but is really just more hypocritical. So in honesty she surpasses her critics.

She is a hero-worshipper with leanings towards meritocracy, and resents the exploitation of genii by mediocre people.

Well, I'd say she's entitled to her opinions, however misguided.

The real question for me is: is she boring? No; the opposite: pretty unputdownable. I even managed to enjoy re-reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged a second time, about 40 years after the first.

I don't demand a book must be good art, but I do demand it must not be boring. If it doesn't appeal as art, it may still appeal as intellectually stimulating. Which I think she is, although I don't think her philosophy is going to get the world anywhere. The world is much more subtle than she dreams of.

[Chris 73]

After reading 3% of it.



There is value in reading boring literature, because an intellectual life requires one to read many boring writings. Besides, it is impossible to read only interesting things because one can't tell what's interesting until one reads a work through. So, one's reading "career" will invariably involve reading many boring works. That's OK.

EDIT:

That really is damning with faint praise.

[Kafka's Crow]

Read on Rand in Tobias Smith's Old School, difficult, if not totally impossible, to give her any respect after reading that.

[Raven Falcon.]

Read on Rand in Tobias Smith's Old School, difficult, if not totally impossible, to give her any respect after reading that.

Are you insinuating that any work of literature that seems atheistic deserves no respect whatsoever?